This is the real problem with AI: it generates plausible-sounding slop in absurd quantity, for which verification is very expensive.
Beyond that, it would interesting to check how wrong the AI version is compared to the ground truth (the published papers).
Current technology cannot do logic, but biology is even more perverse. For instance, suppose you ask to remove starch. If you degrade it, starch is actually removed. However, it's most likely that the point was actually to remove sugar, but degrading it actually made the sugar more readily bio-available. The relationships are complex, and there's a lot of implicit knowledge that is not communicated again at every sentence.
It would be good if the effort towards hype ideas like that was redirected in making a great tool to find and analyze the papers in a fairly reliable way (which would have prevented this blunder).
Beyond that, it would interesting to check how wrong the AI version is compared to the ground truth (the published papers).
Current technology cannot do logic, but biology is even more perverse. For instance, suppose you ask to remove starch. If you degrade it, starch is actually removed. However, it's most likely that the point was actually to remove sugar, but degrading it actually made the sugar more readily bio-available. The relationships are complex, and there's a lot of implicit knowledge that is not communicated again at every sentence.
It would be good if the effort towards hype ideas like that was redirected in making a great tool to find and analyze the papers in a fairly reliable way (which would have prevented this blunder).